JMO, but they seem to have fallen in the same old trap from seasons past with Irene after a mostly excellent job so far this season (excepting the so-so job with Cindy). Their caveat has been to note the "low confidence" forecasts, so I have to credit them for that. But in several recent seasons they've been on the up and out/recurvature scenario for way too many storms. Obviously this was due to over-reliance on the GFS (old MRF) modeling suite and it's known bias in favor of handing off the low-level heat too quickly. There's no way Irene was going to follow their recurvature tracks from the last few days, and I HIGHLY doubt their current max wind forecast of 45 @ 72 hours. I think Irene's got far more potential than what they are affording it and people in coastal Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina well may be in for a surprise when they clue into this system this weekend.
Hey, it's just my opinion. The NHC gets an A- from me so far this season. I think they've done very well in 2005, but this isn't one of those times (though it remains to be seen). To me, the handwriting has been on the wall since Irene began to butt up against the Atlantic Trof. Many around here said she'd be sheared into nothing. That didn't happen. It's classic setup time for pattern reversal and a shot at least at Cat-1.
Don't bag on me for this thread. It's simply an observation. If we can (really we should) credit the NHC when they do a great job, we should be able to call them on when they do a not-so-good job.
FWIW, I'm basing this off of actual data as supplied by the NHC forecast archive.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/re ... 4009.shtml?
Steve
I don't think the NHC's done a very good job w/ Irene...
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
-
dixiebreeze
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 5140
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 5:07 pm
- Location: crystal river, fla.
-
feederband
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 3423
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:21 pm
- Location: Lakeland Fl
-
jasons2k
- Storm2k Executive
- Posts: 8250
- Age: 52
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:32 pm
- Location: The Woodlands, TX
Hey Steve,
I mostly agree, but this one has been a challenge for everyone, but yes I have been saying in a lot of threads don't trust the GFS with this one b/c of the heat and the ridge. The GFS has done great this year - yes - b/c they have been all Caribbean systems. The first real test this season and the Globals freak out. Not surpised at all.
I also agree with the intensity, I expect Irene to reach Hurricane status in 72-96 hours, as posted in my outlook for today.
I mostly agree, but this one has been a challenge for everyone, but yes I have been saying in a lot of threads don't trust the GFS with this one b/c of the heat and the ridge. The GFS has done great this year - yes - b/c they have been all Caribbean systems. The first real test this season and the Globals freak out. Not surpised at all.
I also agree with the intensity, I expect Irene to reach Hurricane status in 72-96 hours, as posted in my outlook for today.
0 likes
-
WindRunner
- Category 5
- Posts: 5806
- Age: 34
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:07 pm
- Location: Warrenton, VA, but Albany, NY for school
- Contact:
Well, as we all have said, this is a difficult storm to forcat. I went and looked at the 120hr position 120hrs ago. It was supposed to be 30N 55W. Well, 22.4N 57.7W is a little off, but considering the amount of uncertainty in forecasting such a resiliant storm, they've done a good job with it, and hats off to them.
0 likes
>>in reality theyve done an excellent job managing the models, giving alternate scenarios, and adapting to the changes. its a reach to suggest otherwise in this situation.
I agree and disagree. Some of the forecasters have given alternate scenarios and as I said, even going so far as to label a couple of forecasts as low confidence. As I said in the intro post, I think that's a serious credit to them and throws water on any of the companies/entities that accuse them of imperialism. But an excellent job in managing the models? That's the reach IMO. I realize they can't go solely off the ECMWF (which admittedly has maintained a southern bias for almost two seasons) which remains >my< model of choice when factoring in western Atlantic surface pressures and upper patterns. As taught to me by your friend Joe Bastardi (
) circa 2001, it's almost always better in that area when it's divergent from the GFS (MRF/AVN stuff back then) when dealing with approaching tropical systems.
But I gotta call you on the "adapting to changes." Anyone can do that and the mention of such pretty much brings out the duh factor. Look at any amateur or even pro met forecast on this site. The weather changes. Patterns change. Quirks even happen. That's why the NHC, Derek Ortt, jschlitz and the rest of them come out with forecasts daily or in 3/6/9 hourly-block increments. But the scenario carried up at least through Monday was bogus from the get-go. Most of these systems, especially weak ones, aren't recurving into mid-Atlatnic TUTTs or weaknesses. That seems almost elementary and is widely understood even by novice posters on hurricane fan sites such as this one. But what about the intensity modeling - 45 @ 72 hours? Clearly if a rank amateur such as myself can see far more potential than that, seasoned veterans who are the best at what they do should be able to as well.
You should know me fairly well as someone who backs up what I say. So here's my solution (the proverbial "money where my mouth is"). If at 72 hours from the referenced forecast (Saturday 8am), Irene is a 45 mph system, I won't say another word about that storm except to wish our friends along the SE Coast a safe and uneventful time. Curiously, the 11am graphic shows it at 65mph. So something was off
.
Steve
I agree and disagree. Some of the forecasters have given alternate scenarios and as I said, even going so far as to label a couple of forecasts as low confidence. As I said in the intro post, I think that's a serious credit to them and throws water on any of the companies/entities that accuse them of imperialism. But an excellent job in managing the models? That's the reach IMO. I realize they can't go solely off the ECMWF (which admittedly has maintained a southern bias for almost two seasons) which remains >my< model of choice when factoring in western Atlantic surface pressures and upper patterns. As taught to me by your friend Joe Bastardi (
) circa 2001, it's almost always better in that area when it's divergent from the GFS (MRF/AVN stuff back then) when dealing with approaching tropical systems.
But I gotta call you on the "adapting to changes." Anyone can do that and the mention of such pretty much brings out the duh factor. Look at any amateur or even pro met forecast on this site. The weather changes. Patterns change. Quirks even happen. That's why the NHC, Derek Ortt, jschlitz and the rest of them come out with forecasts daily or in 3/6/9 hourly-block increments. But the scenario carried up at least through Monday was bogus from the get-go. Most of these systems, especially weak ones, aren't recurving into mid-Atlatnic TUTTs or weaknesses. That seems almost elementary and is widely understood even by novice posters on hurricane fan sites such as this one. But what about the intensity modeling - 45 @ 72 hours? Clearly if a rank amateur such as myself can see far more potential than that, seasoned veterans who are the best at what they do should be able to as well.
You should know me fairly well as someone who backs up what I say. So here's my solution (the proverbial "money where my mouth is"). If at 72 hours from the referenced forecast (Saturday 8am), Irene is a 45 mph system, I won't say another word about that storm except to wish our friends along the SE Coast a safe and uneventful time. Curiously, the 11am graphic shows it at 65mph. So something was off
.
Steve
0 likes
>>It was supposed to be 30N 55W. Well, 22.4N 57.7W is a little off, but considering the amount of uncertainty in forecasting such a resiliant storm, they've done a good job with it, and hats off to them.
I have to disagree with you that they should get a hats off for that. Let me try to explain why. The implications for America from a storm sitting at 30/55 vs. 22.4/57.7 are dramatic. The chance of a storm at 30/55 impacting the US East coast is drastically more remote than a system sitting at 22.4/57.7. Admittedly, I don't have the statistics to back that up (because I don't feel like resarching them) and would assume that a seriously positive NAO or very, very strong high pressure sitting somewhere off the Canadian Coast would be required to kick anything that strongly off to the W, WNW or NW and affect the US East Coast. Due NW of 30/55 for the duration would put a storm into Coastal Maine and rarely do we see that direction in storms sitting at 30/55.
Steve
I have to disagree with you that they should get a hats off for that. Let me try to explain why. The implications for America from a storm sitting at 30/55 vs. 22.4/57.7 are dramatic. The chance of a storm at 30/55 impacting the US East coast is drastically more remote than a system sitting at 22.4/57.7. Admittedly, I don't have the statistics to back that up (because I don't feel like resarching them) and would assume that a seriously positive NAO or very, very strong high pressure sitting somewhere off the Canadian Coast would be required to kick anything that strongly off to the W, WNW or NW and affect the US East Coast. Due NW of 30/55 for the duration would put a storm into Coastal Maine and rarely do we see that direction in storms sitting at 30/55.
Steve
0 likes
-
Anonymous
-
NastyCat4
-
beachbum_al
- Category 5
- Posts: 2163
- Age: 55
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:23 pm
- Location: South Alabama Coast
- Contact:
lol beachbum (and based on my wife, don't I know that) 
>>I don't think it is the NHC--they've done an excellent job given what they've had to work with. The models have been completely awful, and have been wildly inconsistent, swinging back and forth wildly.
They've had the same thing to work with (and more) that you, me and almost everyone else around here does. I disregarded Irene for most of the last several days because of how far out it was. But at 8am this morning, they were completely off base. That's the bottom line. If you are suggesting that the models were all they had to work with (I can't tell since you didn't qualify the statement), then that's not correct. I had my 2 eyes and some stale satellite images and loops from an hour prior to come right out and start this thread saying I didn't think they were doing a good job. I'm not looking for street credit, I get that if I put out a forecast and it turns out to be right. I just think they were doing a disservice to those who are going to be facing a potentially serious threat. (NOTE: I understand the ramifications of crying wolf and such and am in no way suggesting they should overhype the threat ala Bastardi and others).
Steve
>>I don't think it is the NHC--they've done an excellent job given what they've had to work with. The models have been completely awful, and have been wildly inconsistent, swinging back and forth wildly.
They've had the same thing to work with (and more) that you, me and almost everyone else around here does. I disregarded Irene for most of the last several days because of how far out it was. But at 8am this morning, they were completely off base. That's the bottom line. If you are suggesting that the models were all they had to work with (I can't tell since you didn't qualify the statement), then that's not correct. I had my 2 eyes and some stale satellite images and loops from an hour prior to come right out and start this thread saying I didn't think they were doing a good job. I'm not looking for street credit, I get that if I put out a forecast and it turns out to be right. I just think they were doing a disservice to those who are going to be facing a potentially serious threat. (NOTE: I understand the ramifications of crying wolf and such and am in no way suggesting they should overhype the threat ala Bastardi and others).
Steve
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: aspen, crownweather, NotSparta, Team Ghost and 202 guests